Talk:Muhammad Ali Jinnah/Archive 1

Political Career

Call me a jaahil (ignoramus), but i don't know what someone is trying to say in the following:

Governor General of Pakistanmore amenable to British interests: he supported Indian participation in World War II while the Indian National Congress opposed the war.

Factual Error: Jinnah wasn't the Governor General of Pakistan when he allegedly supported the World War II (ended in 1945). He became the Governor General of Pakistan in 1947. If it is result of bad editing, then someone (may be I?) can correct it.

Ideological Issues: I would also like the know if there are links (or bibliographical references) to support the notion that the Indian National Congress opposed the Indian participation in World War II for the sake of being anti-colonial, and Jinnah (or Muslim League) supported the British as pro-colonial. As far as I know the Congress took a political position -- that was shrude but legitimate -- which linked the support to the British with independece of India. The Congress was not a pacifist, anti-war political party. Nor was the Mulsim League a war-mongering political party. Both were political parties, and both wanted INDEPENDENCE from the colonial Britsih rule. Whoever inserted the above line wants to give an impression that Jinnah/Muslim League were pro-British. This is wrong, and I would be happy to discuss it here. I am all ears, given that the discourse remains within the boundaries of civility and confirm to academic rigour.

IJ. --203.130.9.24 11:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested, I would recommend a book . Its called "Freedom at Midnight" by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre. Its a book commending the life of Ghandhi. Although it is extremely biased against Jinnah, It does portray the facts of the histroy in great detail. You will find the answer about the facts in there.

dear commentator,

i have read "Freedom at Midnight". it is indeed a very good book, in spite of all its biases. since you are referring to "facts" in that book, may i recommend you to read this two-part article published in Frontline India (August 2002): "Cripps and India's Partition" by AG Noorani. the URLs are http://www.flonnet.com/fl1915/19150860.htm (Part I) and http://www.flonnet.com/fl1916/19160820.htm (Part II). the said article presents some contrarian "facts".

IJ. --61.5.131.84 08:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Pizza Puzzle's Comments

Why has Dan Keshet decided to delink parts of this article; what grounds does he have to determine that the links are "silly". I believe one can easily turn off all links, if they are bothersome. Pizza Puzzle

Photos

Wonderful photos added. They need frames and captions.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 10:30, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

There seem to be more photos here than text. :D

The odd thing is that the most common image of Jinnah in Pakistan, the one with a Karakuli cap and in sherwani, is not here.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 01:18, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

POV in "Political Career"

I have rewritten Mohammad_Ali_Jinnah#Political_Career to reduce the level of POV. It still needs a longer quote from that speech to provide more perspective--and show what it is that the theocrats quote.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 22:22, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

hhhmmm ....

a very poorly written article indeed.... seems to be written by a bunch of fifth graders.... i think i need to rewrite quite a large part of it, but can anyone (ifaqeer..?) look for some better quality pictures ..?

Very biased against Jinnah

Is it me or this this article very biased against Jinnah, constantly citing sources and writing in a manner that shows him in bad light as the source of ultimate evil or something. Hitler's article shows him in better light than this one about Jinnah. Totally biased.

Biased, but somewhat true

Well you gotta admit, the guy was responsible for more deaths of Muslim brethren than Hitler's extermination camps were, and more than the US lost in WW I and II combined. And Hindus, Sikhs, and other people were also killed, while many millions more were displaced. Not to mention the effects today (two nuclear armed nations indulging in what seems like constant warfare).

Obnoxious comparison with the Holocaust

Mate, if you want to show your bias against Jinnah, the Muslim League, and Pakistan, then do it with intelligence, common sense, and grace. Please don’t get carried away in emotions.

If you need to know how many people were killed during Hitler’s rein, then please check Wikipedia entry on the Holocaust. The numbers are too large for the humanity to be ashamed of itself. However, to me, killing of even a single living being is a terrible thing. I condemn killing of people in any and all circumstances (I am a non-violent, pacifist, anti-war, and an anti-death penalty campaigner), and feel sad for the death of many Indians -- and Pakistanis -- during and after the Independence of India and the Partition of the Subcontinent (1947). But there is no comparison between the two events. What Hitler did was clearly genocide -- systematic killing of a particular (ethnic/religious/ideological) group. During the Independence of India, a large number of human beings were killed in violent clashes. It was kinda a civil war -- equally condemnable and terrible. But, please, there is NO comparison with the Holocaust.

Also if you try to look at it objectively, Jinnah alone wasn’t responsible for the mayhem. The British were, probably, in a hurry to leave India. The Congress wasn’t happy with the Partition. The Muslim League wasn't satisfied with a "moth-eaten" country [reference to Jinnah's reaction to 3 June 1947 anouncement]. The Punjabis (of all three religions) were upset too. Humans, often, act in ways that are cruel and brutal. Everyone knows what happened in 1947. But try to look a bit deeper why it happened. And you will find leaders from all side in the trial box.

Work in progress

Im working on this article ...gathering data/information. Wisesabre

Wisesabre, more power to you, but...

you could become wiser if you learn a thing or two about editing. i have fixed some of your typographical mistakes, especially punctuation marks. You may benefit from any basic book on English grammar and composition.

I have reservations about the way you are presenting Jinnah – and I suspect that your primary source is some Pakistani secondary school textbook that eulogizes Jinnah a bit too much. The previous version was not well-written too (style wise), but presented Jinnah in a some-what balanced way.

There are several POVs in your article. I would like to highlight just a few, and would leave it up to you – or someone else – to re-write. i) Jinnah was once a member of what you call "Hindus' Indian National Congress". I wonder if you mean that Jinnah was a Hindu when he became a member of the Congress. ii) You mention Jinnah’s place and date of birth as if it is agreed upon that he was born on 25 December 1876 in Wazir Mansion, Karachi. Pick any good biography of Jinnah -– I would recommend Wolpert’s –- and you will find that scholars and historians have doubts on the accuracy of the [Pakistani] official version regarding Jinnah’s place and date of birth. iii) I found your comments on Jinnah’s faith quite obnoxious. While you declare him a firm Sunni Muslim, Jinnah always declined to be labeled either as Sunni or Shia. Instead he always said that he was a Muslim – without mentioning his sectarian affiliation, if there was any. Since I would not like to enter into debate that he was not even a practicing Muslim, may I request you to remove the unsubstantiative statements about Jinnah’s sectarian beliefs. -- IJ

Errors and omissions

Thanks alot IJ

• this is hardly my second article on wikipedia.i learning how to edit/write here.im trying to improve my skills.
• my source of information is only my college library which holds only 8,9 books about Jinnah.
• It is possible that i may be wrong, so please feel free to correct it